Newly declassified documents have revealed that the American military was not ready to deal with an imminent threat in Benghazi on the night of the 2012 attack because they always operated under the assumption that host countries would protect diplomatic forces for a few hours attack should an attack occur.

The hundreds of pages of declassified material are transcripts of hearings held by the House Armed Services Committee in the wake of the fatal attack that left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others dead in the early hours of September 12.

A general and top members of the Department of Defense revealed that while they relied heavily on the understanding that Libyan forces would come to the American consulate’s aid for long enough to scramble jets from other bases in the Middle East, they also did little to prepare for the anniversary of the September 11th terror attacks.

Chaos: The House Armed Services has released hundreds of pages of transcripts from hearings about the security preparedness- or lack thereof- leading up to the September 11, 2012 attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi

‘We actually did an analysis of since 9/11 of 2001, how many attacks that we have actually had on 9/11, the anniversary of 9/11. The answer is one, and it was September 11 of 2012,’ Major General Darryl Roberson told the committee in a hearing on May 21, 2013.

‘Prior to that event at Benghazi, there had not been an attack on 9/11 that (the Department of Defense) had to respond to in any way.

‘What we thought, which turned out tragically unreliable, was that the Libyan security force would provide a defense of our diplomats, as is done around the world everywhere, and that failed.’

RELATED ARTICLES

Share this article

Share

Adding to the scramble was the fact that the closest team that could theoretically fly in to help the security forces at the Benghazi compound was in Tripoli.

Two people from that six-person team
were immediately dispatched to Benghazi while the rest stayed in Tripoli
to maintain a secure presence there, said Garry Reid, the principal
deputy assistant secretary of Defense for special operations and
low-intensity conflict.

‘We didn't have a tactical setting to say let's get a military force in there now,’ Mr Reid told the committee.

Expert opinion: Major General Darryl Roberson told the committee that earlier security analysis told Defense Department officials that September 11 was not a day that was picked for a terrorist attack except in 2001, meaning that an increase of security was not necessarily justified on that specific date

‘By the time our forces were in a
position to be able to get into Libya and to do something everything was
coming out of Benghazi, everybody was retrograding to Tripoli. And so
we were working on getting the wounded out. We knew by then that the
Ambassador was dead, and that he was on his way from the hospital to the
airfield.’

Aside from that
six-man AFRICOM team in Tripoli, there were no f-16 fighter planes
anywhere near the Libyan attack zones and the closest air refuellers
that could ready other, closer planes were in England- a 10-hour flight
away.

The logistics of the developing attack
also prompted hesitation on commanders’ parts because even if there was
a plane ready to send in an attack drone or drop mortar fire on the
terrorists because the targets were not clear.

‘We
didn't know who was friendly and who was enemy,’ Major General Roberson
said, going on to defend his commander, General Carter Ham who is in
charge of American forces throughout the African continent.

Unprepared: Garry Reid, the principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, said that there was no system in place that would allow Defense Department officials to send support immediately

'There was no way that we would have been able to drop weapons in that environment, from a drone or from an airplane. All of this, given this environment, was considered by General Ham and dismissed fairly quickly. And personally, from my experience, I believe his decision was correct.’

One of the first fixes that was identified in the aftermath of the attack was a lack of marine security guards on the premises, and Major General Roberson said that the Department had 'made a commitment to increase the coverage' in light of the attack.

'They are not going to be out on the perimeter chasing bad guys down the street, they are defending the hard line, they are defending within our secure areas, defending our people, defending our diplomatic facilities,' he described.

Dozens of pages of testimony remain redacted in the files, released today by the House Armed Services Committee.

The hearings were done behind closed doors, as they gave the elected officials a chance to ask questions about the spread of military forces at the time of the attack.

The volatility of the region- in light of the toppling of Qaddafi's regime months before- led to examinations of the security of the American consulate, including one spearheaded by Ambassador Chris Stevens. The members of the Armed Services Committee concluded that the Ambassador's suggestions would have come too late, as the terrorists struck before he had time to make the reforms.

'I know the ambassador had an effort in place to strengthen and have a diplomatic presence. It wasn't full-time. And to that he lost his life. No pretense that this is a full on operation on the diplomatic side whatsoever,' Congressman Andrews said.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was questioned- by both the House and Senate- in a far more public display that led her to scream at accusations that the State Department did not do enough by failing to question other evacuees as they left Libya in the days following the attack.

‘We had four dead Americans! Whether it was attack preplanned by terrorists or it because of a guy out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill Americans- what difference at this point does it make?!’ Mrs Clinton responded at her late January hearing.

Angry: Mrs Clinton was extremely emotional throughout the nearly-three-hour-long hearing in January, which, unlike the hearings that were just declassified today, were televised

The May 21 House hearings that were just
declassified were part of a series that were held in order to try to
ascertain what failings allowed a group of armed terrorists to breach
the American consulate in Benghazi.

The uncertainty surrounding the chain of events was also another major point of contention as White House officials blamed the attack on a video portraying Muslims in a bad light.

The attack was later determined to be a pre-planned event, though the investigation is ongoing and no arrests have been made to date.

‘It is a very dangerous world. And we are present in many parts of that dangerous world,’ said Congressman Adam Smith, a ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, during the May 21 hearing.

‘And also, we should remember that in the days before the Benghazi attacks, there were attacks on a number of our embassies that were, ironically, in fact inspired by a video, in Cairo, in Sana' a, in Tunis, in Pakistan, and a lot of other places. The threat environment was very complex and very difficult.’